Tough call—but I vote YES on Proposal Three

Even for a strong proponent of renewable energy, a decision on Proposal Three (Prop 3) required a good deal of thinking and soul-searching. Prop 3 on the Michigan ballot would amend the state constitution to establish a new standard for renewable energy: 25% renewable by 2025. The measure would also limit energy rate increases to 1% per year for energy produced specifically from renewable resources. It would also allow for extensions of the 2025 deadline if such extensions can be justified by the utility companies with respect to maintaining those rate increases (see ballot language below).

Even many individuals and organizations that support renewable energy development in principle oppose Prop 3. Several reasons for opposition are compelling and range from a reluctance to tinker with the constitution, to skepticism about whether jobs will be created to concerns that substantial electric rate increases will ensue.

We have covered the Prop 3 debate on Greening of the Great Lakes, including two recent interviews with prominent individuals who come at the issue from decidedly conservative perspectives. The first guest was U.S. Navy Vice Admiral (retired) Dennis McGinn, who now serves as president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). You can listen to the interview in its entirety, but I think it is fair to say that the major reason Admiral McGinn supports efforts to increase renewable energy generation is to reduce American dependency on foreign oil. This, in turn, fortifies American national security.

My most recent guest was Saul Anuzis, former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and former member of the Republican National Committee. In his support of Prop Three, Mr. Anuzis links arms with several other organizations that would normally be anathema to him. But, for Anuzis, Prop Three is not a matter of politics; rather, it is the ethical and prudent thing to do given the need to “preserve the health, economic and spiritual benefits of our natural world for our children, grandchildren and future generations to come.”

In a detailed memorandum addressed to “Michigan Republicans/Conservative Activists and other Interested Parties,” and, in his remarks to me, Anuzis provides several reasons for his support of Prop Three—reasons ranging from philosophical/historical to political/pragmatic. It is a conversation well worth hearing and a memo equally worth reading.

Based on my research, I have decided to support Prop Three. With respect to the constitutional question, Anuzis reminds us that the right of “Initiative and Referendum” provides a citizen-led alternative to the legislative process. According to Ballot*Pedia, there have been 25 proposed amendments to the Michigan Constitution since 1963, and nine of those passed. During that same time, there have been 12 initiatives to change or create state statutes, and six of those passed. With respect to the latter, the Bottle Bill is a notable success story. One of the reasons we have such redress built into the constitution is to ensure that people can try and make good things happen even when the legislative branch cannot or will not. Given the political and financial clout of interests opposed to increasing our renewable energy standard, I don’t envision any legislative action now or in the foreseeable future. And I believe the issue of renewable energy standards is important enough—for both national security and environmental reasons—to justify the constitutional consideration.

And, yes, our electricity rates will increase in the future. As stated in the very readable and balanced Citizen Research Council of Michigan memorandum/report on Prop 3, our energy rates will increase regardless of the passage of the measure. Michigan now gets almost 60% of its electrical energy from coal-powered plants, many of which are in need of repair and retro-fitting. Those costs will be passed on the consumers, and, I, for one, would rather pay more for renewable energy than energy produced from coal. I might also note that the coal we burn in those plants is entirely imported from other states.

As for the job creation debate, the research is mixed, and I don’t think it is particularly reliable on either side of the argument. The Michigan Small Business Association, for example, cites research that indicates Prop Three will cost us jobs—1,600 a year, for 30 years. Given what has happened in a state like Iowa, which now produces about 20% of its energy from wind, the job loss argument is spurious. On the other side of the argument is a Michigan State University study that predicts a 75,000 “job year” increase over the same period. As the Mackinac Center for Public Policy clarifies, one person working in the same job for 25 years would equate to 25 job years, even though it is, in fact, one job that has been created. Proponents of Prop 3 are equating job years with jobs, and that is worse than spurious. Given problems with these studies and the general difficulty of predicting job creation, I did not factor in this issue when making my decision.

I can’t predict the fate of Prop Three next week, but I can certainly provide my own rationale for supporting it. As Admiral McGinn indicated, this is not a question of whether Michigan can afford to pass Proposal Three; rather, it is to understand why Michigan cannot afford for it to fail. Again, for reasons of national security and responsible environmental stewardship, I will vote “Yes” on Proposal Three.